TTAB Reverses Refusal of C SHARPE Mark: Slash in Mark Does Not Prevent Specimen from Being a “Substantially Exact Representation” of Drawing

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark C SHARPE, finding that the original specimen displaying "C/SHARPE" was a substantially exact representation of the mark, as the slash did not materially alter its commercial impression.

Background

C-Sharpe Co., LLC sought registration on the Principal Register of the mark C SHARPE in standard characters, for “Building construction; Consulting in the field of building construction; General building contractor services; Renovation and restoration of buildings; Repair of buildings” in Class 37. Because this was a use-based application under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)), C-Sharpe was required to submit both a drawing of the applied-for mark and one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified, pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.56(a) (37 C.F.R. § 2.56(a)).

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127), on the grounds that the marks shown in the specimen did not match the mark in the drawing, as required by Trademark Rule 2.51(a), which mandates that the drawing be a "substantially exact representation" of the mark as used in commerce. Specifically, the original specimen displayed the mark “C/SHARPE” using a slash instead of a space.

The Examining Attorney found that the slash could not be ignored or considered the same as a blank space because a slash can be interpreted as meaning "or," which would not match the meaning of the mark C SHARPE displayed in the drawing.

The Applicant argued against the refusal and submitted the following substitute specimen showing the mark as “C-SHARPE Co, LLC”:

However, the Examining Attorney rejected this specimen as well, finding that, with the hyphen and extra wording, the specimen failed to match the C SHARPE mark displayed in the drawing.

Decision

The TTAB reversed the refusal, concluding that the original specimen displaying C/SHARPE was a “substantially exact representation” of the mark C SHARPE as depicted in the drawing. As authority, the TTAB cited TMEP § 807.14(c), which states that “punctuation, such as quotation marks, hyphens, periods, commas, and exclamation marks, generally does not significantly alter the commercial impression of the mark.”

The TTAB acknowledged that adding punctuation can sometimes alter the meaning of a mark. However, in this case, it agreed with C-Sharpe that the slash in the original specimen created substantially the same commercial impression as the space in the mark displayed in the drawing.

The TTAB also disagreed with the Examining Attorney’s interpretation of C-Sharpe’s statement that the display of the slash in the specimen was “arbitrary.”  The Examining Attorney had concluded that this statement was an admission that slashes are “arbitrary” in the trademark sense, thereby adding source-identifying content to the mark. Instead, the TTAB found that the Examining Attorney misunderstood C-Sharpe’s assertion. To the contrary, the TTAB concluded that the addition of a slash does not add distinctive or source-identifying content, and determined that the commercial impression of the mark shown in the drawing was essentially the same as that of the mark shown in the specimen.

As a result, the TTAB found the original specimen and the drawing to be a substantially exact match, and—without addressing the substitute specimen—reversed the refusal under Sections 1 and 45.

The case is In re C-Sharpe Co., LLC, Serial No. 98269432 (TTAB May 29, 2025).